Dedicated to enacting the President's Council on Bioethics proposal that we "prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm."

11.01.2007

Transgenderism = Postgenderism?

The Wikipedia entry on "postgenderism" has been merged with the entry on "Transgenderism", because according to the wiki entry:

More recently, the term has also been used as a synonym for postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.

It is good to see that people are recognizing the shared beliefs of transhumanists and LGBT activists finally, and stating the goals out loud:

According to futurist George Dvorsky, postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies. Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either eventually become a thing of the past or that all human beings will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and father a child, placing the entire need for gender and gender differences into question.

And it's been a theme of feminism for a while now too. In 1991 socialist feminist Donna Haraway published an essay, "A Cyborg Manifesto", in which

Haraway argued that women would only be freed from their biological restraints when their reproductive obligations were dispensed with. In other words, Haraway believes that women will only achieve true liberation once they become postbiological organisms, or postgendered.

This entry does not mention any of the risks or costs involved, it just lays out the psychological demand for same-sex conception and artificial wombs. And it doesn't get into whether the people being created would also be genetically engineered, but it's clear they would support that as well, because transhumanists are postgenderists are transgenderists are LGBT activists are transhumanists. They are all unsatisfied with natural man-woman conception and oppose an Egg and Sperm law.

Btw, the wiki on Transhumanism has a section called "controversy" that presents some common arguments against transhumanism that is worth a read.

Hi John. I knew that was a strong assertion, but I think that when it comes down to it, for a person to be any of those things, they have to be all of them. A feminist cannot reject transhumanism without conflicting with feminism. An LGBT activist cannot reject post-genderism without abandoning LGBT equality.

You are probably right that most feminists and gay rights activists do not know what transhumanism means. But their values support it and imply it, and chances are they will affirm it when they do find out what it means. Renouncing transhumanism and postgenderism means they have to accept gender roles and unequal rights for same-sex couples. So if they want to adamantly oppose gender roles and unequal rights, they have to embrace transhumanism.

I'm all for finding a way for feminists and gay rights activists to reject transhumanism without suddenly being labeled bigots and misogynists, and I think the Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise is the key.

So, are you saying you are not one of those? Are you saying you are not a post-genderist, perhaps? Or a transhumanist? What will you say to differentiate yourself from them? And you can't just say that they're extremists, or that it will never happen, or don't worry about it - you have to indicate where you draw the line between you and any of them.

Where can that line be drawn besides an Egg and Sperm law preserving natural conception? This is the Enough point, and anything beyond this point is Transhumanism and Postgenderism and Pro-LGBT. Different people will have different focuses, but they'll all oppose an Egg and Sperm law and give the green light to each other, though they'd probably impose speed limits on each other's goals, since they would be diverse.

"Haraway argued that women would only be freed from their biological restraints when their reproductive obligations were dispensed with. In other words, Haraway believes that women will only achieve true liberation once they become postbiological organisms, or postgendered."

My,my,my are you STILL at it My dear Mr. Howie?? Always trying to find a nice little ol' wedge issue to slide your paltry, insignificant little "egg and sperm" litigation into! LMAO! SSP WILL be a reality mr. Howard and there isn't one itsy bitsy lil' ol' thaaaaang that you and your religious nutjob crew can do to stop it! More of you 'conservative" bigots are being exposed weekly for the hypochrites that you are! LOL! I wonder if there are any actual breeders left in the GOP! LMFAO! All the chickens are comin' home to roost now Howie! Who, in all honesty gives a flyin' FUCK about your rant against transhumanism?!? Transsexuals are nothing but hetero WANNABEES! They are NOT part of our community as much as they really, REALLY think they are!! Let 'em go cut their cocks and balls off and then they can go join the wonderful hetero morons living their perfectly drab, boring and pointless existences which they won't be "enjoying" much longer anyways! LOL! You see Mr. Howie after SSP becomes the LAW of the land human society won't have much need for your "kind"! maybe you can dig what I'm trying to tell ya here, maybe not. Just suffice it to say that all you hetero religious wack jobs are doin' is bangin' yer heads against a very THICK brick wall! I mean if that's what floats yer boat then hey by all means go for it! You breeders always were nothin' but a cheap sideshow anyway! listening to you nutjobs rant on only CONFIRMS what I as a HAPPY HEALTHY GAY MALE have ALWAYS known to begin with: You can't reason with IRRATIONALITY! Da Musclehippy.

OK, that's a start. So do I, we agree on something for once. It seems like she's saying we need to go all the way to "dispensing with" pregnancy in all women. It sounds like she's saying women should not even have the ability, because the mere presumed ability to conceive and gestate oppresses them. But that can't be what she was saying, was she really arguing to take away every women's right to be fertile? She surely must mean that women should not have an "obligation" to use their bodies for that, it should be better and more expected for babies to be born in artificial wombs, to the point that women's bodies aren't necessary for anyone to reproduce, they have other better options.

Do you feel that women's bodies should be necessary for someone to reproduce? Then you might actually agree with her and not me. I'm opposed to artificial wombs, I think a man and a woman should both be necessary to reproduce.

I will never understand, apparently, why you think that if a technology becomes available, it will eventually become mandatory.

There are many children born who would not be were it not for C-sections. And, indeed many doctors have used the C-section more for convenience than necessity. Surely you would not say that the C-section should be banned, because if left unchecked it would become the norm, and later, mandatory.

Genetic engineering isn't just any technology, John. It will be morally obligatory for people to have their DNA screened and fixed so that they don't pass on genes that cause disease. It will be a long time before it is illegal not to, if ever, but human nature and marketing will conspire so that most people will feel they have no other choice, they will feel they are doing the right thing by having their child's genes fixed. They will know that people will blame them if they don't and their child gets the disease, and they'll blame themselves.

John, think about it. Why would anyone fork over many thousands of dollars of their own money to have their kid genetically screened and fixed if they didn't feel like it was the right thing to do? They would have to feel that not doing it and spending their money on themselves would be the wrong thing to do. For anyone to choose to do it would be proof that they felt morally obligated to do it. At first only a few people will feel that way, but as it becomes more common it would become more expected and then reach the tipping point to becoming morally obligatory for everyone. That means that everyone would freely choose to do it because it is believed to be the right thing to do, and no good parent would not do it.

And of course I'm for allowing doctors to try to save babies lives, and do C-sections. What I'm opposed to is conceiving people not from a man and woman's natural genes. That's not a form of medicine and puts the person at great risk, and also has societal costs and threatens freedom and dignity.

So while we're on the off topic about EBI(External Birth Incubation) Mr. Howard I'm somewhat curious about your opinions concerning miscarriages, fetal alcohol syndrome and other "womb" related mishaps which could be COMPLETELY eliminated by utilizing this technology! Not to mention the fact that not all females out there actually enjoy having to cart around a parasite for approx. 9 months. EBI will prove to be safe, efficient and LIFE saving! Fetuses can be MUCH better monitored in a 24/7 hospital ward environment where they can be tended to MUCH better. Females can now finally be TRULY liberated from the child bearing burden. It's a win/win situation Mr. Howard which you right wingers MUST embrace! Have a nice day all! MH.

i've been focused on getting an egg and sperm law passed, and using artificial wombs wouldn't be affected by an egg and sperm law. i am against "EBI's", though. They are inhuman, creating a baby that had no maternal nurturing while in utero might not ever make up that human connection, the poor baby might be alienated from other humans its whole life.

Artificial wombs will have to be proven on other animals first. Not just to see if a chimpanzee is born healthy, but to see how it interacts with its mother and other chimps, and how it handles its own pregnancies. Chimps already don't like chimps that have been in human contact and don't smell like chimps, but this will surely be even more alienating. It will maximize their alienation, and for no good reason. Is there a shortage of chimps that can get pregnant?

You cite the risks of a woman carrying a pregnancy, but those risks won't stop once the baby is out of the womb. I guess you will advocate for robot parents to eliminate the harm that drunk, abusive parents often cause? Or maybe just leave the person in the incubator for their whole life, like in the Matrix? That would eliminate risk pretty well.

As long as there are any women getting pregnant, we won't eliminate the risks of pregnancy. All people should be created equal, by the union of a man and a woman, and carried as long as possible in their mother's womb.

There is no right for anyone to manufacture human beings in incubators, it is inhuman and a waste of money. Why is it necessary again?

Yep! There goes Howie, talkin' out of his ass again! LOL! I'm not to sure about chimpanzees or other mammals Howie but what about children who grew up in ORPHANAGES without even knowing WHO the hell their "actual" parents were?!? They seem to get along pretty well growing up without their "actual" parents Howie. On the topic of having an alcohol dependent mother or father, well John if you can't tell the difference between Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and just plain having drunks for parents methinks you're trying to make apple juice out of orange marmalade. You cite that a fetus should be carried for as long as "possible" in its mother's womb. Why is this Mr. Howard? Do you somehow enjoy, or get off on the site of an overbloated female breeder so fat and distended waddling down the street? Yeckkkkk! Only a hetero perv could ever truly stomach something soooo gut wrenching! I suppose you also get off on hearing a woman screaming to the top of their lungs trying to shit out a baby from their stretched out vagina holes too eh? =((. Hey after all it's only "nature's way" right? LMAO! MH.

1) What does "King and King" have to do with same-sex conception? I've read it. There are no children in it.

Now, the kings do get a child in "King and King and Family", but she's very clearly adopted...she follows them home from their honeymoon.

2) So if marriage is only for conception, which seems to be what you're saying, then should the elderly and the infertile not be allowed to marry? What about the gay couples who don't want to have their own children? I know at least two gay couples who intend to adopt, due to personal beliefs. Should straight couples who don't want to have their own kids not be allowed to marry? (OK, this is a multi-parter.)

3) I know several gay couples with kids, all of whom are a product of an egg and a sperm (as far as I know). Stopping SSC will not prevent queers from becoming parents. There are plenty of families now in which one or both adults aren't biologically related to their children...how is a mother and a stepfather any different from two moms in that way? (There's another question. Oops.)

That said, a whole lot more research would have to be done before I'd consider SSC anything close to a good idea on a scientific level...there's plenty of current options for lesbians who want babies, and I don't know of any way in which a baby can be made without an egg.

I also think the binary gender system is seriously overrated, but that's not the point right now.

"King and King" didn't bring up the fact that the two Kings would only be able to have children together using genetic engineering. I feel kids shouldn't be taught that it makes no difference what sex they love, because they will have to turn to the geneticists if they love someone of their own sex. I hadn't heard of the sequel before, but it too seems to gloss over the issues of adoption. The Kings see the animals with their children and say they wish they had "a little one of their own", as though the animals weren't biological parents but only owners of "little ones" they could play with, like dolls. Also, the "surprise" that follows them home from the jungle just exists in the jungle, without biological parents. Again it makes things seem, well, fairy tale like.

2) Marriage should continue to guarantee the right to attempt to conceive children together, using the couple's own gametes. It has never required that they actually do. Married couples should not be prohibited from attempting to conceive children. But people should be prohibited from attempting to conceive with someone of their same sex.

3) I'm not opposed to same-sex couples or gay people raising children or adopting children. I am only opposed to genetic engineering of human beings.

You're f**king opposed to ANY medical procedure that could enlighten ANYONE'S existence Howie! Plain and simple! Save The Children?!? Give me a freakin' break already! Like a typical conservative Howie your views are soooo rooted in the past their not even worth addressing any further! Dark Ages are over with Howie. It's now the 21st century baby. You right wing nutjobs keep losing at the polls and you're bigoted hypochrisy is SOOOOOO egregious!! LOL! My advice to you Howie baby is this: if yer such a firm believer in outlawing this procedure then, START A PETITION DRIVE MOVEMENT!! Peace all. MH.

Uh...of course the "King and King" series feels fairy-tale-ish...it's a fairy tale. Unless you're going to pull out a critique of, say, how a transformed mermaid and a human could have a child (Little Mermaid II), that's really not a strong argument.

If you can point me to very many books written for 3-5 year olds that delve deeply into the issues surrounding biological reproduction and/or the legal and emotional ramifications of adoption, then I'll be surprised. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Well, Little Mermaid is a little different bceause there isn't a fish marriage debate going on right now. So the childish beliefs in mermaids aren't going to be confirmed and reinforced in the next grade. But same-sex conception just might be.

and MH, I'm not opposed to medicine, this is NOT medicine. And I do think that the priority should be on basic medicine getting to more people rather than technology focused medicine for technology's sake.

I'm afraid I still don't understand why same-sex marriage is necessarily going to lead to same-sex conception, and I certainly don't see how it wouldn't be totally irresponsible to say that this technology would be available any time soon.

Gay Marriage WOULD'NT neccesarily lead to SSP! That's the whole point of this little debate!! Howie seems to think that if SSM is legalized nationwide then SSP is going to automatically follow suit! Relax Howie dear! It will take a fair amount of time until Gays/Lesbians fully realize exactly what a miracle of science this procedure really is! It will probably take them even LONGER to fully realize the LONG term benefit that this procedure(as well as EBI)will reveal! Time is a river, and the finer things will come shining through! Peace. MH.

Creating people with genetically engineered genes is not medicine. Medicine treats sick people, and is where our priorities should be. Please read "Enough" to get a deeper understanding of the issues involved, it is very simplistic to think it is just a matter of eliminating disease or not eliminating disease.

liat, banning SSM wouldn't have any impact on SSP, couples wouldn't need to be married to do it. Nor would SSM necessarily lead to SSP, which might never be possible and might be banned.

The problem arises in that last scenario - allowing SSM but banning SSP. That would mean that for the first time in history, a legal marriage was publicly prohibited from attempting to conceive children together. It strips conception rights from every marriage, since they are all equal. Any marriage could then be prohibited from using their own gametes for eugenic reasons, since they would have equal rights.

We need to ban SSP and all forms of genetic engineering. That means that same-sex couples won't have the same rights that both-sex couples have. And that difference is the sine qua non of marriage and must remain so, in order to preserve natural conception rights.

Soooo..If I'm understanding you correctly Mr. Howard, your whole argument here is that you want this procedure to be outlawed for us HOMOsexuals because it may interfere with HETERO breeding rights??? Your whole argument here is pretty vague or maybe I'm just an idiot for not gettin' it! Perhaps you could be a bit more concise in stating EXACTLY what point you're attempting to make here. Are you saying that WHEN SSM becomes a legal reality, which it WILL very soon, then because our marriages are now on a LEGAL par with your type of marriages(hetero), then SSP will automatically become a legal right for us(homos), and that you're opposed to that? Um...I would think that if THAT were indeed the case then on the flip side that would mean what?? That Heteros could no longer breed or just could'nt breed using THIS method? Please explain your view to me cuz I'm finding your whole opposition to this procedure to be a bit ambiguous. If you could be so kind please spell it all out STEP, by STEP so I can get some grasp here of what it is that you're trying to say. Thanks. MH.

I want this procedure (along with all genetic engineering) to be outlawed for anyone who would attempt to use it (which includes all same-sex couples, and both-sex couples that might want to genetically engineer their children), because it may interfere with natural conception rights, yes.

One of the most direct attacks on natural conception rights comes from suggesting that they are equal to same-sex conception rights. Not only does it elevate genetic engineering to the "basic civil right" that natural conception is, it also knocks our right to natural conception down to the same dubious level as same-sex conception rights. In other words, if the right to do same-sex conception is at all questionable, then so is the right right to do natural conception. That is unacceptable. One is a basic civil right and should be guaranteed by marriage, and one is not a right at all.

SSM already is legal, as it should be in every state that would allow same-sex conception, which is every state, currently. Yes, it does imply a right to do same-sex conception, unless it doesn't and SSP is outlawed in spite of the existence of married same-sex couples, in which case marriage is suddenly gutted of its universal meaning of granting the couple conception rights. That would affect hetero couples too, see?

Unless we take your position and allow same-sex conception, then hetero rights are threatened. Do you in fact think that hetero couples should have a right to conceive? Or, should all couples be subject to the same government oversight, regardless of their sex make-up?

I wrote: "SSM already is legal, as it should be in every state that would allow same-sex conception, which is every state, currently."

In Missouri, people are not allowed to implant same-sex conceived embryos in a uterus. But, they are allowed to conceive the children there and go to another state to implant them. That's why we need a federal law, and it has to ban the conception of children that are not from a man and woman's gametes, rather than a specific part of the process.

I think what your trying to say here Howie is that SSP would somehow "cheapen" the reality of millenia old breeding practice. However, I don't think cheapen is a very acurate word because to me it would ENHANCE and IMPROVE upon the notion of conception. One of your chief arguments against SSP is that, in the case of Kaguya, it would supposedly take approximately 3 to 4 hundred "attempts" to produce one ferile, viable embryo. Once this procedure becomes commonplace I seriously doubt it would take even a fraction of that amount. Kaguya was a FEMALE. Female mammals produce no sperm cells, therefore the procedure would probably be a bit more tricky for them. Males, however, possess both X AND Y chromosomes and can produce EGG cells as well as SPERM cells through stem cell technology. One male partner simply opts to have a egg cell produced from his sperm whilst the other male partner simply adds a sperm cell and then VIOLA! There ya have it! SSP! Heh,heh,heh. Ya know Howie there IS a BIG BIG loophole in your whole legislative view which we Gay/Lesbian couples could exploit to our advantage but I'm not going to tell you what it is! LOL.

Cheapen, enhance, either way it is bad. If it doesn't work well, it is merely unethical and risky to the subjects of the experiment. And if it works well enough to "enhance" or "improve", then it will take over natural reproduction and really bad things. And anywhere in between, it is merely a tragic waste of resources and injurious of our humanity.

I suppose the loophole you see is that "eggs" and "sperm" can be derived from someone of either sex? Yeah that might be true, but not without genetic engineering to change the methylation, or genetic imprinting, of the entire genome. They're not sure what genes need to be activated or de-activated to get a male genome to be female. It's not just in the X or Y, there are differences all across the genome.

Even if it was relatively simple, it is not trivial for a person to have no genetic mother or father, or perhaps even worse, to have two genetic fathers or mothers. It is good that we all are the children of one person of each sex, and the natural children at that.

But back to the loophole: it would have to be closed by specifying in the fine print that the sperm is the natural unmodified gamete of an actual existing adult man, and the egg is the natural unmodified gamete of an existing adult female.

Where is it written that marriage automatically grants conception rights, or that conception rights don't exist outside of marriage?

Last I checked, marriage and conception were neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive, for anyone. If you're going to ban SSM and SSP on the basis that they will somehow affect het marriages' conception rights (wtf are "conception rights?"), then shouldn't you also ban all, straight or not, unmarried people from having babies?

It seems to me like you're trying to make a slippery slope out of a desert plain here.

Also, what did you mean when you said SSM is legal in every state, or was that a hypothetical that I missed?

Howie dear you do NOT need to change the ENTIRE genomic structure of the male sperm cell in order to create a "female" egg cell through stem cell technology! LOL! That female essence ALREADY exists within EVERY true XY male. It's more like "coaxing" out the female egg cell than actually "manipulating" genes. It is the MALE of the human species that determines the GENDER of the child. That is why the Y chromosome is so precious! Human males possess male AND female chromosomes. It is that wonderful mix of M/F genes which will make SSP such a wondrous, encompassing procedure. Then, after the Homosexual CHROMOSOME is finally discovered and isolated we can finally weed out the bad hetero "genes" and replace them with the good Homosexual genes and then...VIOLA, bye bye poverty, warfare, famine and disease and hallooooo...WORLD PEACE! Destiny awaits Mr. Howard. Which side of history will YOU find yourself on, eh? Peace. MH.

Liat, one place it is written quite recently is in the Lawrence decision, where it is noted that marriage, among other things, makes sexual intercourse legal. Zablocki also affirms that marriage allows intercourse to take place. And Loving goes directly at the conception rights angle of marriage. And yet, in none of those cases did the state law actually explicitly say that marriage allows sex and conception, it was just so intrinsic to marriage's meaning. To the court, marriage, conception rights, and allowing sexual intercourse are all synonymous, they are all inherent in the definition of marriage.

An Egg and Sperm law wouldn't have any legal impact on whether or not sex outside of marriage is a right or not. Unmarried sex would certainly continue, because it wouldn't be violating the egg and sperm law. Everything that happens today would continue after the egg and sperm law is passed.

What we are concerned about is the rights WITHIN marriage. All marriages should have a right to conceive using the couple's own gametes. Same-sex couples should not have a right to conceive using their own gametes. So, if we pass an egg and sperm law, we'd have to change same-sex marriages to civil unions in order to preserve the rights of married couples.

Also, what did you mean when you said SSM is legal in every state, or was that a hypothetical that I missed?

I said SSM is legal (in my state) and should be legal in every state, because SSP is legal in every state. Only if we prohibit SSP with an egg and sperm law should we change SSM's to CU's, otherwise, same-sex couples should certainly marry if they are considering conceiving a child together someday.

musclehippy, read up on genetic imprinting, you'll learn that there are lots of genes that are contributed by the mother or the father, but not both - and these are all over the genome, all 23 chromosomes, not just the so-called sex chromosome. This is the reason that it has proven so hard to do same-sex conception.

Not hard at all Howie baby! just wait and see. Once the conservatives are gone and stem cell research is once again allowed to flourish here in Shitmerica you'll see just how "impossible" SSP is! LOL! You should embrace this technology Howie. It is the future baby, and WE are the future! The writing's on the wall Johnny boy! Peace all. MH

As long as there is no Egg and Sperm law, then yes. A couple doesn't have to be "considering conceiving a child together" to be allowed to marry, they can absolutely not want children at all. The same would be true whether the couple were male-female or same-sex.

But if there is an egg and sperm law, and there certainly should be, then same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry whether they intend to conceive together or not. Just like a brother and sister should not be allowed to marry even if they don't intend to conceive together. It is all about whether or not the couple should be given the right to conceive or not, not about their intentions or ability to, which is all private and unknowable and could change anyway.

Y'know, I don't really support SSP, at least at the moment because I can't think of an ethical and safe way to develop it in a way that humans could use.

But I can't support your eggandsperm law either, especially since if it passed in the form you're envisioning, it would take away marriage from couples who aren't interested in SSP, based on a procedure that doesn't even exist.

I'm sorry if I'm being a pest in my attempts to clarify your position, but as I'm reading it right now, you think marriage confers upon couples the right to conceive with each other, and that same-sex couples shouldn't have that right, therefore shouldn't be married.

If I'm correct about that, then where does that leave opposite-sex couples who physically can't conceive (women past menopause, people who've had various surgeries, people who just aren't fertile for whatever reason)?

Pay no attention to this worn out old conservative Molly. This "egg and sperm" law of his is nothing more than a very thinly veiled attack upon SSM! The homophobia is very much written on the wall here! If "individuals" such as Mr Howard had their way concentration camps would be the "new" gay bars of the 21st century. I seriously think at this point in time we can deduce the entire "gameplan" of these overly zealous social conservatavistos! LOL! Oh BTW Howie baby did ya hear the FANTASTIC news concerning Stem Cell research over in the UK? They've now found a MUCH more convenient and QUICKER way to produce stem cells from human skin!! Yupper, one step closer to SSP! Heh,heh,heh. Yours truly, Da Musclehipster!! =))

As to where it leaves infertile couples or menopausal couples, it leaves them right where they've always been: they have the right to conceive children together, they just probably won't. But they are allowed to try. The Egg and Sperm law wouldn't affect them at all. But it would affect same-sex couples, and it would take away the central right of marriage: to be allowed to try to conceive children together.

It does shatter some illusions and I can see why it is disturbing to people who don't want to upset gay couples. But it would only reflect the reality - we can't give same-sex couples the right to conceive together. We CAN give them federal recognition of civil unions that have all the OTHER rights of marriage though, and that is a giant step forward.

You are falling for the bio-tech-eugenicst strategy of manipulating your support for bio-tech because you don't want to hurt gay people, you don't want to be a hater or bigot that opposes equal rights. But as you know, most gays don't even want that, they want equal protections. A lot don't even want marriage, they feel it is a straight imposition onto the true spirit of gay freedom, and I think they are right. So it really isn't anti-gay to recognize that babies should all come from a man and a woman, or to insist that marriage guarantees conception rights. And it is pro-gay to come up with a way to achieve equal protections in all 50 states and the federal government, and this plan does that.

Fuckin' christ almighty, now i've heard it all!! LMAO! Oh yes Mr. Howard and YOU of all people know sooooo much about us homos and what WE really want and need! LOL! How about you waltz into Harlem and preach to the black masses that what "they" actually want AND need is legislation that bans them from marriage and procreation. After all we can't have those "negroes" thinkin' they're actually equal to us whites now right Howie dear. I realize, of course, I'm using a very very rough anology here as the Gay/Lesbian rights movement is NOT about racial rights but Sexual Orientation rights, however the SIMILARITIES are definitely ONE AND THE SAME! Exactly how do you know Mr. Howard that "we" DON'T want marriage RIGHTS and or procreation RIGHTS?!? Hmmm...??? Any stats or surveys from REPUTABLE info collection services and or agencies other than Focus on The Fascism,errr....Family? just curious that's all. MH.

musclehippy, I'm all for sexual orientation rights, in terms of how everyone thinks of them now. That's in terms of everyone being able to love and make a life with, raise children, kiss, come, visit in the hospital, someone of either gender. Those aspects of marriage lots of gays indeed want (I guess I had been thinking more of the Alan Ginsberg era when marriage was seen as disgustingly straight and no gay would want to be tied down to someone behind a picket fence).

I would LOVE to see a large national poll on how many gays want to have the right to attempt same-sex conception. My polls on BMG and DailyKos (blogged about below) were contradictory.

It's about conception rights versus everything that can be accomplished by relinquishing genetic engineering rights. Equal protections can be achieved much much faster (like, tomorrow) if people agreed that genetic engineering should be put on the shelf, until the public has had a chance to consider the costs and benefits. In my opinion, the costs far outweigh any benefits, but it should be put before the public and subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny. IF the pubic decides to allow it, then we should continue to allow people to marry someone of their same sex. But as long as it in question, we should not give the conception rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Lots of people agree that trying to create babies for same-sex people is going too far. But they also agree that same-sex couples deserve equal protections that any married couple gets. Why is conception rights more important to you than equal protections? Or, more to the point, why is equal conception rights for YOU more important than equal protections for millions of same-sex couples in every state of this country?

Oh I see now! Musclehippy slaps himself upside the head! All of us fags could've have COMPLETE civil rights like YESTERDAY if only we give up our procreation rights which technically are not even possible yet. Mr. Howard are you truly aware of just how off the wall you REALLY truly sound??? Then in the same breath you have the absolute NERVE and AUDACITY to suggest that it's up to the freakin' PUBLIC to determine just what sort of rights we should have?!? Are you sure Arkham Asylum isn't missing one of their lunatics here Mr. Howard cuz it shure as hell sounds to me like yer a few fries short of a happy meal! Peace. MH.

OK, so...a couple who can't conceive children with each other because, say, the woman doesn't have a uterus, deserves more rights than a couple who can't conceive children with each other because both members have a uterus? Do I understand you correctly?

that's what it comes down to, but the reason is because one would require genetic engineering and one would be natural conception. The public doesn't know or care about the state of the uterus, which is private, but their sex and therefore their genetic imprinting is public. People should only have the right to conceive with someone who has complementary genetic imprinting, ie, someone of the other sex.

Sex is public, there is no box for "none of your business". It is true that one can change their legal public sex to be different (or the same) from their genetic imprinting, but that would be private. Publicly, we have genetic imprinting that matches our public sex.

Yes, MH, the idea is to prohibit everyone from attempting to create people that are not from the union of natural unmodified gametes, which necessarily means of a man and a woman. So a hetero couple would not be prohibited from combining their gametes. In the case of them being unable to, or unwilling, they just won't. But they would still have the right to, if they could or would.

But I do feel that it would be medicine to figure out how to restore fertility, including creating gametes from stem cells, so long as they represent the person just like their natural gametes would have, and are 100% indistinguishable from their natural gametes. This would not require modifying the genes the way producing opposite-sexed gametes would.

I am not in favor of developing stem cell derived replacement gametes, it is unsafe and unnecessary, but I think legally it would qualify as medicine to which people have a right, and therefore couldn't really be stopped. But as healthy people cannot conceive with someone of the same sex, it is not medicine to try to facilitate that.